"From that day it was the boast of the people that their Federal government was the freest and most limited government that had ever existed. That while it possessed powers necessary for protection against foreign and domestic attack, it contained none by which individual rights could be destroyed without process of law or just compensation."
-Mr. Potter, 1870, The Legal Tender Cases
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
"Three generations of Imbeciles are enough." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
I started this blog with the idea that man is an end in himself. Eventually, I will come back to why this assertion is true and why it is so important, but for now I’d like to follow my own curiosity for a while. Thus, the majority of my articles from this point forward will consider Supreme Court decisions and how they relate to the fundamental premise of man as an end in himself.
For readers unfamiliar with the American legal system it may be shocking to learn that in almost all respects Americans, from the perspective of the Courts, are considered an expendable means to the end that is the collective. Of course, I could be wrong that people would be shocked about this. Maybe they are aware of the collectivist principles that serve as the backbone of our legal system. But I doubt it...because I am always hearing people speak of things like rights and freedoms and about how they have them. Unfortunately, beliefs such as these are mere delusions, but enough of that! Let’s get to the judicial opinion of the day…the real meat and potatoes!
You’ve heard of the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He is a pretty big name on the legal scene: wrote the Common Law, gave us the “Clear and Present Danger” and was one of the first champions of the legal realist school of thought. Progressives champion Justice Holmes as a true advocate of freedom, and he is considered by most academics to be a pivotal leader of the great social changes of the early 20th century. However, leaving aside his more famous opinions for now, I'd like to focus on a case that I have yet to hear discussed in the classroom. This decision, authored by Justice Holmes, fully discloses the Progressive’s view of man in relation to the whole.
Justice Holmes, delivering the opinion of the Court in Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200), held, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
There you have it folks – We can sacrifice you in war. We can vaccinate you against your will. And if we, the people/state, believe that you are not fit for reproduction, we can certainly cut your Fallopian tubes. Due process you say? Yes, of course you have due process, but there is no such thing as an absolute right, and anyway, the due process clause creates no substantive right. Actually, the due process clause only guarantees that the government follow a proper procedural method prior to seizing your life, liberty or property. Thus, if the experts of a legal authorized administrative body believe it to be in the best interest of the public to prevent certain people from reproducing, this court will not stand in their way. This was Holmes’ judicial restraint in action – a beautiful thing when democracy has its day, no?
There is only one more point of interest regarding Buck v. Bell that I'd like to point out. Where an individual’s right to life, liberty, or property is infringed upon by government power it has to put forward an argument for why such infringement is necessary. Usually, in most cases, the public good is economic prosperity for all, prevention of bankruptcy of the nation, or the health and safety of an entire class of people. In Buck v. Bell, however, the public good cited was the preemptive war on crime and poverty. In other words, the experts had decided that where there are three generations of “imbeciles” it is certain that the next child will be an imbecile as well. Thus, the state argued, we should be legally authorized to stop that generation from coming into being. If this isn’t a legal precedent justifying governmental practice of eugenics, then I don’t know what is.
Buck v. Bell has yet to be reversed.
So, was man an end in himself in this case? Let's see. Holmes argues that the cost of policing and providing welfare for the incompetent weighs heavy on the state. Thus, the state should be free to reduce that cost. Nope! Man is a means to the end that is the collective good (or social cost). This precedent, and many others like it, should make people think twice about a public healthcare system. Perhaps, fifty years from now the majority opinion will read "three generations of early age cancer is enough."
For readers unfamiliar with the American legal system it may be shocking to learn that in almost all respects Americans, from the perspective of the Courts, are considered an expendable means to the end that is the collective. Of course, I could be wrong that people would be shocked about this. Maybe they are aware of the collectivist principles that serve as the backbone of our legal system. But I doubt it...because I am always hearing people speak of things like rights and freedoms and about how they have them. Unfortunately, beliefs such as these are mere delusions, but enough of that! Let’s get to the judicial opinion of the day…the real meat and potatoes!
You’ve heard of the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He is a pretty big name on the legal scene: wrote the Common Law, gave us the “Clear and Present Danger” and was one of the first champions of the legal realist school of thought. Progressives champion Justice Holmes as a true advocate of freedom, and he is considered by most academics to be a pivotal leader of the great social changes of the early 20th century. However, leaving aside his more famous opinions for now, I'd like to focus on a case that I have yet to hear discussed in the classroom. This decision, authored by Justice Holmes, fully discloses the Progressive’s view of man in relation to the whole.
Justice Holmes, delivering the opinion of the Court in Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200), held, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
There you have it folks – We can sacrifice you in war. We can vaccinate you against your will. And if we, the people/state, believe that you are not fit for reproduction, we can certainly cut your Fallopian tubes. Due process you say? Yes, of course you have due process, but there is no such thing as an absolute right, and anyway, the due process clause creates no substantive right. Actually, the due process clause only guarantees that the government follow a proper procedural method prior to seizing your life, liberty or property. Thus, if the experts of a legal authorized administrative body believe it to be in the best interest of the public to prevent certain people from reproducing, this court will not stand in their way. This was Holmes’ judicial restraint in action – a beautiful thing when democracy has its day, no?
There is only one more point of interest regarding Buck v. Bell that I'd like to point out. Where an individual’s right to life, liberty, or property is infringed upon by government power it has to put forward an argument for why such infringement is necessary. Usually, in most cases, the public good is economic prosperity for all, prevention of bankruptcy of the nation, or the health and safety of an entire class of people. In Buck v. Bell, however, the public good cited was the preemptive war on crime and poverty. In other words, the experts had decided that where there are three generations of “imbeciles” it is certain that the next child will be an imbecile as well. Thus, the state argued, we should be legally authorized to stop that generation from coming into being. If this isn’t a legal precedent justifying governmental practice of eugenics, then I don’t know what is.
Buck v. Bell has yet to be reversed.
So, was man an end in himself in this case? Let's see. Holmes argues that the cost of policing and providing welfare for the incompetent weighs heavy on the state. Thus, the state should be free to reduce that cost. Nope! Man is a means to the end that is the collective good (or social cost). This precedent, and many others like it, should make people think twice about a public healthcare system. Perhaps, fifty years from now the majority opinion will read "three generations of early age cancer is enough."
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)